> It does. Men who were considered bigger and stronger tended>to win disputes, such as who will mate with that woman (in some cultures>it is something MEN decide), or who (and whose family) will have the>lion's share of food in times of famine.

Well, that's a good hypothesis that would be easily tested by checking if
larger men (those who would win disputes) have larger weiners. I don't
suppose there's a ready database for such stuff?

> Also, it's possiblewomen tended to prefer males who appear>to be dominating, because: a. such males are likelier to be better>providers, b. children from such males will probably be stronger,>atleast socially and c. children from such males will be more >attractive to the next generation of women, thus producing more>grandchildren.

Or, like other vertebrates reviewed by Eberhard, peni shape and size
could play subtle roles in post-copulatory female choice (which male's
sperm are utilized is physiologically controlled by females' bodies in
many species of animals--and radish plants, believe it or not).

Animal biologists have a healthy array of theory currently all but
ignored by the social sciences, apparently not because it's been tried
and failed, but out of principle and obstinance.

We know that sexual selection on males was intense during our
evolutionary history (we know because we invest so heavily in
infertile "kamakazi" sperm instead of only producing viable, fertile sperm.
Such sperm morphs only appear in species in which male sperm often
co-mingles in females.

Both the "female choice" and the "social status" hypotheses for human
penis size seem to be testable, but if social status was derived from
peni size, one would think that status was related to something in the
first place--like having something females "prefer" (meant in the sperm
competition sense, not the x-rated movie sense, though the two may be
related).